Rajasthan Court August 1988 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Maina Devi Vs. Inder Singh and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-19-1988
Reported in: 1988(2)WLN617
N.C. Sharma, J.1. Heard, Mr. Sharma learned Counsel for the petitioner.2. The only argument advanced by Mr Satish Sharma was that the decree in question was passed in favour of Jaswant Singh who was the predecessor-in-title of the non-petitioners. He invited my attention to Section 2(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure which defines the expression 'decree-holder' as meaning any person in whose favour a decree has been passed or an order capable of execution has been made. On the basis of this definition of the expression 'decree-holder', it was contended that in the instant case Jaswant Singh was a decree-holder and he alone could make an application for execution of the decree. The learned Counsel referred to two decisions reported in (1 ) AIR 1940 Pat 472 and (2) AIR 1946 Bom 27. Both these decisions have no application what so ever to the facts of the present case. In the Patna case, on the death of Raja Prasad decree-holder, the petitioner made an application for execution stating th...
State of Rajasthan Vs. Ghisu Lal and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-19-1988
Reported in: 1988WLN(UC)153
K.S. Lodha, J.1. The State has filed this appeal against the acquittal of respondents Ghisu Lal and Shankar from offences under Section 353, IPC and 54(A) of the Rajasthan Excise Act, by the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Sojat by judgment dated 18-10-19782. The prosecution story briefly stated is that on 7-10-1974, the SHO Police Station, Sojat, Chhunaram got an information that a car would be passing by Sojat Road carrying illicit liquor. Therefore, Head Constable Narain Singh of police out post Sojat along with some other constables was deputed at the Bazar in Sojat Road to keep a watch. Later, at about 9.45 p.m. a car reached there but it did not stop on being signalled by Shri Babu Lal, Head Constable, who was in police uniform. Wherupon the police party intercepted the car and made it to stop Babu Lal, who was driving the car and who is said to be the owner therof, came out of the car and gave a fist blow on the perital region of Narain Singh. Apart from this, some more ...
Dev Lal Vs. Moda and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-19-1988
Reported in: 1988WLN(UC)154
Kishore Singh Lodha, J.1. This appeal by the complainant Dev Lal has been filed against the five respondents after leave was granted to him, against the acquittal for offences under Sections 323, 342 and 147 IPC. I do not propose to go into the merits of the matter, since, in my opinion, now at this stage no interference with the order of acquittal would be proper.2. It may be mentioned that according to the prosecution the incident had taken place on 29-5-1977, more than 11 years back when the accused party is alleged to have entered the house of the complainant and had given him beating with hands and fists. The cause of the incident, as alleged by the accused, at the time of the incident was that the complainant had filed a civil suit against the accused and accused wanted him to withdraw the same. On trial the learned Magistrate found that the complaint filed by the complainant was unduly belated and the explanation that first a report was filed with the police was not substantiate...
National Textile Corporation (Dp and R) Ltd. and 3 ors. Vs. State of R ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-18-1988
Reported in: 1988(2)WLN275
Pana Chand Jain, J.1. Since common question of law is involved in all the above mentioned writ petitions, they are being disposed of by a common order.2. The petitioner of D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 895/88, is a Unit of Shree Bijay Cotton Mills, Bijay Nagar, petitioner of D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 896/88 is a unit of Mahalaxmi Mills Beawar, petitioner of D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 897/88 is a unit of Edward Mills, Beawar and petitioner of D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 898/88 is a unit of Udaipur Cotton Mills Udaipur. The petitioner is a subsidiary Corporation of the National Textiles Corporation Ltd., New Delhi (for short 'NTC' here in after) is a company incorporated under the Companies Act. The petitioner's various units named above were the companies in the private sector and since they were in liquidation the management of their units were taken by the Central Government under the provisions of the Sick Textile (Taking over of Management) Act, 1972 in the year 1972 and subseq...
Kajod Vs. Board of Revenue
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-18-1988
Reported in: 1(1989)WLN(Rev)368
1. The petition is directed against the order (Annexure-M) dated 14-12-1976 passed by the Board of Revenue. The impugned order is a common order in three proceedings which arose substantially in the same set of facts. The petitioner Kajod was in unauthorised occupation of Khasra No. 938 in village Kachroli measuring 10 Bighas 2 Biswas, which was recorded as 'Gair Mumkin Pokhar' (Talai). Proceedings Under Section 91 of the Land Revenue Act were initiated by the Tehsildar for his eviction. More ever, the petitioner approached the SDO, who passed an order altering the soil classification from 'Gair Mumkin' to 'Barani'. As a result of this change, the land was allotted to the petitioner. Members of the public, being aggrieved by this act of conversion of a land meant for public, preferred an appeal, which was allowed In the mean time, mutation having been made in favour of the petitioner Kajod, that too was challenged It is these proceedings which came to be finally decided by the impugned...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Moti Chand
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-12-1988
Reported in: [1989]176ITR527(Raj)
1. This is a reference under Section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, at the instance of the Commissioner of Wealth-tax for deciding the following question of law, namely :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the value of paintings, etc., was not included in the wealth of the assessee ?'2. The relevant assessment years are 1975-76, 1976-77 and 1978-79. The question for decision is whether the value of paintings, drawings and manuscripts could be added in the net wealth of the assessee or they were exempted under Section 5(1)(xii) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. The Wealth-tax Officer rejected the assessee's contention that they were exempted. However, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner reversed the view of the Wealth-tax Officer and the Tribunal has affirmed the Appellate Assistant Commissioner's view. Hence, this reference at the instance of the Commissioner.3. The same question relating to the same assessee in respec...
Hindustan Radiators Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-12-1988
Reported in: [1989]175ITR60(Raj)
1. This is an application under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by the assessee. The Tribunal has remanded the case to the Commissioner taking the view that the findings recorded by the Commissioner are insufficient for deciding the case on merits. The contention of the assessee is that the findings recorded by the Commissioner are sufficient to decidethe case on merits and that, therefore, there is no occasion to make the remand.2. A question relating to the sufficiency of the findings for deciding the case on merits is a question of law. Accordingly, a question of law does arise out of the Tribunal's order. We, therefore, allow the application and direct the Tribunal to state the case and refer to this court for its decision the following question of law, namely :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in remanding the case to the Commissioner of Income-tax on the ground that the findings recorded by the Commissioner are ins...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Builders Engineers Co.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-12-1988
Reported in: (1988)73CTR(Raj)230; [1989]175ITR317(Raj); 1988(2)WLN330
Verma, C.J. 1. This is a reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), at the instance of the Revenue to decide the following question of law, namely :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that no penalty under Section 271(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is leviable in this case on the assessee, a registered firm, because it has no tax liability within the meaning of Sub-clause (b) read with the Explanation to Clause (i) of Section 271(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. The relevant assessment year is 1978 79. The assessee was a registered firm which was required to file the return on or before June 30, 1978. However, the assessee filed the return late on November 28, 1978. The Income-tax Officer on completing the assessment determined the tax payable by the assessee at Rs. 25,000. However, the tax deducted at source amounted to Rs. 40,000 approximately with the result that the assessee bec...
Lokender Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-12-1988
Reported in: 1988WLN(UC)125
P.C. Jain, J.1. This is a second bail application under Section 439, Cr.PC in the FIR No. 71/88 registered the Police Station. Itawa, District Kota for an offence under Section 302. IPC. The first bail application was dismissed as not pressed on 14th June, 1988. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused-petitioner that when the first bail application was moved, challan was not filed and now the challan has been filed. Shri Bharat Singh Hada, learned Counsel for the accused-petitioner submits that the alleged incident had taken place on 28th March, 1988, while the FIR was lodged on 8th April, 1988. It was further submitted by him that the original FIR was under Section 365, IPC and later on the case was converted into an offence under Section 302, IPC. The learned Counsel has further submitted that it is alleged there are four accused involved in the incident and out of whom two had already been enlarged on bail by the learned Sessions Judge, Kota. The learned Counsel has m...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sugan Chand and Sons
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-11-1988
Reported in: [1989]178ITR339(Raj)
J.S. Verma, C.J.1. This is a reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), at the instance of the Revenue, to answer the following question of law, viz.:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the penalty imposable under Section 271(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in the case of the assessee-registered firm cannot exceed 50% of the assessed tax worked out in the status of a registered firm ?'2. The relevant assessment year is 1974-75. The return of income was required to be filed by the assessee on or before July 31, 1974, but it was actually filed late on December 15, 1975. The Income-tax Officer, therefore, initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(a) of the Act. The Income-tax Officer levied penalty of Rs. 2,580. The assessee preferred an appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner who held that the maximum penalty could not exceed 50% of the assessed tax and sin...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »